Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Oct 2;101(19):1775-1782.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01473.

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Management of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Matched-Pair Analysis

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Management of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Matched-Pair Analysis

Austin J Ramme et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: Rotator cuff disease is a major medical and economic burden due to a growing aging population, but management of rotator cuff tears remains controversial. We hypothesized that there is no difference in outcomes between patients who undergo rotator cuff repair and matched patients treated nonoperatively.

Methods: After institutional review board approval, a prospective cohort of patients over 18 years of age who had a full-thickness rotator cuff tear seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were retrospectively evaluated. After clinical evaluation, each patient elected to undergo either rotator cuff repair or nonsurgical treatment. Demographic information was collected at enrollment, and self-reported outcome measures (the Normalized Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORCnorm], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score [ASES], Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation [SANE], and pain score on a visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and >24 months. The Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI) was used to assess health status at enrollment. The size and degree of atrophy of the rotator cuff tear were classified on MRI. Propensity score analysis was used to create rotator cuff repair and nonsurgical groups matched by age, sex, symptom duration, FCI, tear size, injury mechanism, and atrophy. The Student t test, chi-square test, and regression analysis were used to compare the treatment groups.

Results: One hundred and seven patients in each group were available for analysis after propensity score matching. There were no differences between the groups with regard to demographics or rotator cuff tear characteristics. For all outcome measures at the time of final follow-up, the rotator cuff repair group had significantly better outcomes than the nonsurgical treatment group (p < 0.001). At the time of final follow-up, the mean outcome scores (and 95% confidence interval) for the surgical repair and nonsurgical treatment groups were, respectively, 81.4 (76.9, 85.9) and 68.8 (63.7, 74.0) for the WORCnorm, 86.1 (82.4, 90.3) and 76.2 (72.4, 80.9) for the ASES, 77.5 (70.6, 82.5) and 66.9 (61.0, 72.2) for the SANE, and 14.4 (10.2, 20.2) and 27.8 (22.5, 33.5) for the pain VAS. In the longitudinal regression analysis, better outcomes were independently associated with younger age, shorter symptom duration, and rotator cuff repair.

Conclusions: Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear reported improvement in pain and functional outcome scores with nonoperative treatment or surgical repair. However, patients who were offered and chose rotator cuff repair reported greater improvement in outcome scores and reduced pain compared with those who chose nonoperative treatment.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kahlenberg CA, Dare DM, Dines JS. Further research is needed to define the benefits of non-operative rotator cuff treatment. HSS J. 2016 Oct;12(3):291-4. Epub 2016 Feb 29.
    1. Seida JC, Schouten JR, Mousavi SS, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Milne A, Bond K, Hartling L, LeBlanc C, Sheps DM. Comparative effectiveness of nonoperative and operative treatments for rotator cuff tears. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2010 Jul.
    1. Pegreffi F, Paladini P, Campi F, Porcellini G. Conservative management of rotator cuff tear. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2011 Dec;19(4):348-53.
    1. Makhni EC, Steinhaus ME, Morrow ZS, Jobin CM, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr. Outcomes assessment in rotator cuff pathology: what are we measuring? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):2008-15. Epub 2015 Oct 21.
    1. Longo UG, Franceschi F, Berton A, Maffulli N, Droena V. Conservative treatment and rotator cuff tear progression. Med Sport Sci. 2012;57:90-9. Epub 2011 Oct 4.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances